So Mayor Fulop cannot upgrade the quality of government without spending more money. You are saying by this that Healy was doing a good job with the resources he had. You are crazy. If he would fix the broken parts of government and we would not even need a Mayor's Action Bureau.

You are more crazy if you think the people are are getting treated with respect, and the jobs are getting done. Just more people with the same result.

I don't want to pay more taxes for better services that not the deal I was promised. I need tax relief. If the mayor can do this and provide better services, more power to him, but first cut taxes. We are in a crises.

The only thing good about the mayor hiring his campaign staff down to the people that hung the door knockers is that most of the Kool Aid drinking are no longer posting here.

Quote:

Pamrapo wrote:This is a necessary change in Fulop's commitment to upgrade the quality of government.

In the old days, city government worked so poorly you needed a councilmember or a department director to get anything done. so coulncilmembers could look like heroes by simply making a phone call and getting somebody to so their job.

When the phone calls are getting answered, residents are getting treated with respect, and the jobs are getting done, the better councilmembers will find something more significant to do. Working with the administration on an initiative. Working their ward, listening to residents, and thinking about what are the next steps to move the city forward.

dtjcview wrote:An org change of this size needs to be done top-down, and takes a bit longer than 2-3 months. I don't think Steve alone can micromanage this. And cost savings isn't simply about reducing headcount.

Having said that, like most people, I'll be watching my property tax bill for next year very closely, and expect to see a dramatic improvement in services, or a dramatic reduction in my bill. Or both.

Quote:

john1952 wrote:This person says it better me.

Quote:

JPhurst wrote:

2. Although a very nice idea, expanding the number of employees at a time when we face a structural deficit is not going to sit well with some people. At the very least, complete the desk audit/restructuring and reduce headcount where you can.

Because if our tax bills are going up, people are not going to be crazy about seeing all these new hires unless they are lights out fantastic. Though maybe with Frank Scalcione in RRC I can get a pizza delivered with my building permit?

This is a necessary change in Fulop's commitment to upgrade the quality of government.

In the old days, city government worked so poorly you needed a councilmember or a department director to get anything done. so coulncilmembers could look like heroes by simply making a phone call and getting somebody to so their job.

When the phone calls are getting answered, residents are getting treated with respect, and the jobs are getting done, the better councilmembers will find something more significant to do. Working with the administration on an initiative. Working their ward, listening to residents, and thinking about what are the next steps to move the city forward.

dtjcview wrote:An org change of this size needs to be done top-down, and takes a bit longer than 2-3 months. I don't think Steve alone can micromanage this. And cost savings isn't simply about reducing headcount.

Having said that, like most people, I'll be watching my property tax bill for next year very closely, and expect to see a dramatic improvement in services, or a dramatic reduction in my bill. Or both.

Quote:

john1952 wrote:This person says it better me.

Quote:

JPhurst wrote:

2. Although a very nice idea, expanding the number of employees at a time when we face a structural deficit is not going to sit well with some people. At the very least, complete the desk audit/restructuring and reduce headcount where you can.

Because if our tax bills are going up, people are not going to be crazy about seeing all these new hires unless they are lights out fantastic. Though maybe with Frank Scalcione in RRC I can get a pizza delivered with my building permit?

Who says they are "too effective"? How did you come to this conclusion. They added dead weight if you ask me. A bunch of people that hung door knockers.

Fulop talked about metrics, so what and where are the metrics.

In the picture in the story they are helping someone buy a property and another with naturalization. What! Why do I have to pay for this? Why is the job of city government.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:Wait a second, I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly.

We're criticizing the RRC for being too effective and actually handling all of the requests that are submitted in an orderly, systematic and accountable fashion? Why, just because it leaves the city council members with less to do?

Yeah, that's a terrible idea...

Get your heads out of your collective asses guys. I can't speak for all residents, but I wouldn't be making a leap by saying residents prefer results to bureaucratic garbage.

An org change of this size needs to be done top-down, and takes a bit longer than 2-3 months. I don't think Steve alone can micromanage this. And cost savings isn't simply about reducing headcount.

Having said that, like most people, I'll be watching my property tax bill for next year very closely, and expect to see a dramatic improvement in services, or a dramatic reduction in my bill. Or both.

Quote:

john1952 wrote:This person says it better me.

Quote:

JPhurst wrote:

2. Although a very nice idea, expanding the number of employees at a time when we face a structural deficit is not going to sit well with some people. At the very least, complete the desk audit/restructuring and reduce headcount where you can.

Because if our tax bills are going up, people are not going to be crazy about seeing all these new hires unless they are lights out fantastic. Though maybe with Frank Scalcione in RRC I can get a pizza delivered with my building permit?

2. Although a very nice idea, expanding the number of employees at a time when we face a structural deficit is not going to sit well with some people. At the very least, complete the desk audit/restructuring and reduce headcount where you can.

Because if our tax bills are going up, people are not going to be crazy about seeing all these new hires unless they are lights out fantastic. Though maybe with Frank Scalcione in RRC I can get a pizza delivered with my building permit?

Let me add that, although I agree with Corporation Counsel's interpretation of the Faulkner Act, if I were a council member and I inquired with a department head about a constituent complaint, and the response was "Have them call RRC" I would be livid.

So far at least, I have found my councilwoman accessible and responsive.

JPhurst wrote:I have questions about the RRC, but as much as I like Earl Morgan, this column makes very little sense.

What Farrell said about the city council is correct. In this type of government under the Faulkner Act, the council has no control over city employees and does not have any direct role in day to day operations. That has always been the case and does not require a creative interpretation of the Faulkner Act. Some cities have a "Council-Manager" government under the act where the council directly runs things. We don't have that.

That doesn't mean that a councilmember cannot call city officials and ask questions or make requests, or speak at a council meeting and decry their poor performance or lack of response if they don't respond properly.

And there is no reason why the mayor himself cannot set up a bureau to deal directly with constituent requests/complaints, etc. That was essentially what the Mayor's Action Bureau was, in theory, supposed to do.

I do think that there are some legitimate questions to ask about this restructuring. To wit.

1. I still have not heard a good reason why Veterans Affairs, Senior Affairs, and Cultural Affairs are now under this department. To the extent those bureaus had employees whose primary job was to handle citizen complaints or questions, then I can see an argument for consolidating them under the RRC. But outreach, event planning, development, etc don't seem to fit here.

2. Although a very nice idea, expanding the number of employees at a time when we face a structural deficit is not going to sit well with some people. At the very least, complete the desk audit/restructuring and reduce headcount where you can.

Because if our tax bills are going up, people are not going to be crazy about seeing all these new hires unless they are lights out fantastic. Though maybe with Frank Scalcione in RRC I can get a pizza delivered with my building permit?

I agree with you, especially on #1. I thought the plan was to expand Cultural Affairs into something more that promotes tourism, current arts orgs./groups and GROWS the Cultural & Arts offerings here, all in the name of boosting our economy, appeal/brand and quality of life here in JC. This seems backwards to me.

I have questions about the RRC, but as much as I like Earl Morgan, this column makes very little sense.

What Farrell said about the city council is correct. In this type of government under the Faulkner Act, the council has no control over city employees and does not have any direct role in day to day operations. That has always been the case and does not require a creative interpretation of the Faulkner Act. Some cities have a "Council-Manager" government under the act where the council directly runs things. We don't have that.

That doesn't mean that a councilmember cannot call city officials and ask questions or make requests, or speak at a council meeting and decry their poor performance or lack of response if they don't respond properly.

And there is no reason why the mayor himself cannot set up a bureau to deal directly with constituent requests/complaints, etc. That was essentially what the Mayor's Action Bureau was, in theory, supposed to do.

I do think that there are some legitimate questions to ask about this restructuring. To wit.

1. I still have not heard a good reason why Veterans Affairs, Senior Affairs, and Cultural Affairs are now under this department. To the extent those bureaus had employees whose primary job was to handle citizen complaints or questions, then I can see an argument for consolidating them under the RRC. But outreach, event planning, development, etc don't seem to fit here.

2. Although a very nice idea, expanding the number of employees at a time when we face a structural deficit is not going to sit well with some people. At the very least, complete the desk audit/restructuring and reduce headcount where you can.

Because if our tax bills are going up, people are not going to be crazy about seeing all these new hires unless they are lights out fantastic. Though maybe with Frank Scalcione in RRC I can get a pizza delivered with my building permit?

nyrgravey9 wrote:Wait a second, I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly.

We're criticizing the RRC for being too effective and actually handling all of the requests that are submitted in an orderly, systematic and accountable fashion? Why, just because it leaves the city council members with less to do?

Yeah, that's a terrible idea...

Get your heads out of your collective asses guys. I can't speak for all residents, but I wouldn't be making a leap by saying residents prefer results to bureaucratic garbage.

But again, I'm just one resident...

+1

RRC enhances city government and does render the city council as a purposeless entity. That council members "are expected to do more than just make a series of phone calls" is true, however, implying that a successful tenure in office may be defined by the number of phones calls to the RRC assumes that council member's ward supporters are uninformed.

It's about results and follow up. We've seen the difference between a "hands on" council member and one that is merely present at council meetings. The last election seemed to prove that.

We're criticizing the RRC for being too effective and actually handling all of the requests that are submitted in an orderly, systematic and accountable fashion? Why, just because it leaves the city council members with less to do?

Yeah, that's a terrible idea...

Get your heads out of your collective asses guys. I can't speak for all residents, but I wouldn't be making a leap by saying residents prefer results to bureaucratic garbage.

Like most mayors, Jersey City's new one, Steve Fulop, understandably wants to start his administration with a bang.

So he's been busy ramping up police sweeps in high crime areas and revamping the city's Office of Employment and Training. But, his recasting of what used to be called the Mayor's Action Bureau to the Resident Response Center, a much more powerful entity, could become problematic.

Administration officials say this response center will be more democratic than its predecessor, more professional and more centralized -- indeed more like the sort of operation Fulop would have been familiar with in his former job at the banking powerhouse Goldman Sachs.

This new agency will supposedly relieve City Council members of having their days and time cluttered with those pesky calls from constituents who might want a tree trimmed or some other such thing.

Council candidates run for office pledging to improve, or reclaim, neighborhoods in their wards. But during a recent council meeting, the new city corporation counsel, Jeremy Farrell, interpreted the Faulkner Act -- which spells out Jersey City's form of government -- to inform the council members they have no right to tell department directors what to do. However, the director of the Resident Response Center, who wasn't elected, says she, if need be, can convene meetings with department heads and their minions.

Of course, City Council members can call the response office to report a constituent complaint. But it might be bit be awkward at a block association meeting if all a council member can offer as solutions to issues raised is the assurance to dutifully call the matters in to the response team and ask them to jump right on them.

Administration officials say council members will be kept in the loop. OK, but if all it takes to handle constituent issues is to pick up a phone and make a call, residents can do that themselves.

What clout will council members have to keep campaign pledges they made to improve conditions in their wards? What platform will they run on for re-election? That they made the most calls to the response team?

Of course, it's the Faulkner Act that mandates existence of a City Council. But what does it matter to the voters who is elected to that body if their principal duty is showing up twice a month to vote yea or nay on the agenda created by the mayor and the president of the City Council.

Council members representing troubled parts of the city -- such as Ward F and Greenville -- are expected to do more than just make a series of phone calls.

The Fulop administration may have meant well when it created the Resident Response Center, but, combined with Farrell's pronouncement about the role council members are expected to play in this administration, it was at best naïve.